JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Shyam Mohan, Sri V.S. Tripathi for respondent No. 6 and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant challenged the order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the Joint Cane Commissioner (Development), Lucknow, saying that the appointment of the appellant made on the post of Clerk was farzi, which is an offence under the provisions of IPC and, therefore, after taking legal advise at the local level, action be taken, as there is no requirement of holding any departmental enquiry, the appointment being fraudulent. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the case of the appellant was that his appointment was not made on compassionate ground and as a matter of fact, he was appointed against a clear vacancy. 4. The learned Single Judge found that the appointment order dated 24.1.1997 itself shows that one Sri Ramesh Chand, Jeep Driver, died in harness and after his death, his wife gave an affidavit that the appellant, Alok Kumar Pandey s/o Sri Kaushal Kumar Pandey be given appointment in his place. On the affidavit so given, the appointment was made. 5. The learned Single Judge also observed that the compassionate appointment is given in accordance with the Rules known as U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, in which a detailed procedure is provided for appointment of a person on compassionate ground. The appellant could not have been granted compassionate appointment on the post in question, which had fallen vacant because of the death of one Sri Ramesh Chand. 6. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that the order dated 24.1.1997 (appointment letter) giving compassionate appointment was illegal and void. The writ petition has been dismissed with the direction that in the matter in question, the Cane Commissioner of the State of U.P. shall himself conduct the enquiry and take final decision in the matter, preferably within a period of four months. The learned Single Judge also found that the appointment on compassionate ground on the post which had fallen vacant because of the death of one Sri Ramesh Chand, has already been made in the year 1992. 7. The learned Single Judge also found that the appointment on compassionate ground on the post which had fallen vacant because of the death of one Sri Ramesh Chand, has already been made in the year 1992. 7. Before us, it has been reiterated that the appointment of the appellant was not made on compassionate ground, and as a matter of fact, after receiving the appointment letter, the appellant had moved an application for correction, to which there is a specific denial by the respondents that no such application was ever moved. 8. Be that as it may, the appellant’s counsel Sri Shyam Mohan has himself stated that the appellant was not appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules. 9. That being the situation, the appellant is not claiming the benefit of appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. 10. The learned Single Judge, though has ordered for holding an enquiry by the Cane Commissioner, but at the same time confirmed the impugned order dated 4.7.2008. 11. In view of the specific case of the appellant that he was not appointed on compassionate ground and the apparent contradiction in the terms of the appointment order, wherein it has been mentioned that his appointment has been made on compassionate ground as a dependent of the deceased employee and the appellant having taken advantage of appointment for such a long time, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. The facts aforesaid, do, prima facie, reveal that the appointment of the nature given to the appellant could not have been accepted by the appellant himself and, therefore, all those, who are responsible for making such appointment need be questioned and appropriate action may be taken against them. 13. We have made the aforesaid observation keeping in mind the fact that the appellant himself denies that he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and as such, there was no occasion for issuing the appointment order in favour of the appellant showing him to be the dependant of Sri Ramesh Chand (deceased). 14. We, therefore, direct that the Cane Commissioner shall hold the enquiry against all such persons, who are responsible for making such appointment, and if it is found that the appointment was taken by fraud or misrepresentation, appropriate action may be taken in accordance with law. 15. 14. We, therefore, direct that the Cane Commissioner shall hold the enquiry against all such persons, who are responsible for making such appointment, and if it is found that the appointment was taken by fraud or misrepresentation, appropriate action may be taken in accordance with law. 15. The confirmation of the impugned order, by the learned Single Judge shall be taken to mean only, that if the appointment is found fraudulently made, in the enquiry by the Cane Commissioner, the consequences will follow, but if it is found otherwise, then also appropriate order be passed by the Cane Commissioner. The continuation of the appellant in service shall thus be dependent upon the out come of the enquiry. With the above observations, the special appeal is dismissed. ————